Re: [pyrnet] Eye problems

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/19/00 5:36:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
lmweisser@olywa.net writes:


> My personal view is that I would be a lot more frightened by Sub aeortic
> stenosis than I would by cataracts or even PRA but nobody yet has made a
> blanket recommendation for cardiac exams. 


I agree, we just happen to be talking about eyes at the moment.

<<What you may have been told was that we had no cases reported
to the committee nor to the survey. This does *not* constitute non
existence.>>

Yes, and that it was unknown in the breed.  You even asked me to communciate 
back with you if I found out differently as "new things are always coming 
up".  This of course I did as well as did one of the puppy owners from the 
litter.

I think we are digressing from the point that Janice and others, including 
myself are making.  I am confortable with what I am doing aobut Cataracts and 
I will freely let anyone know what I have learned and am doing.  Lets check 
and document this newly identified condition and not just chalk it up to "one 
no  big deal or seeing ghosts".  Shouldn't the folks with the dogs and eye 
specialists get respect for their experiences and view points?  What you and 
I think seems less important than what is documented by these folks armed 
with a specialist who is studying the condition.  It seems silly we should 
agrue this point at all.  Information in its purest form can only help and 
should not be filtered by someone else's viewpoints and biases.  

<<In short, it's probably not just you, but the
condition is still familial.>>

Its showing up related to a family of dogs?   Which family?  I have some dogs 
with the problem.  There are dogs in California with the problem (not related 
to my family).  There are dogs in Canada with the problem (not related to my 
family).  My vet reports other Pyrs he has checked at eye clinics with all 
breed shows in middle Ga. with the problem (not related to my family).  That 
is not what Familial means and I believe you know the difference or at least 
you should since you are publishing the term.  I think the exact term you 
published is "limited to one familial situation or circumstance" or 
equivalent.

<<.  One
tries to prevent the breeding of affected dogs and the sooner you know they
are affected, the better.>>

Thank you, we agree we should check.  How many breeders do you know who are 
checking all their dogs that they breed now?

As far as how I check I will think for myself and make the best decisions.  I 
can assure you I will know the status of every dog I breed and hopefully all 
the puppies buyers will do the same.  

<<This is because experience shows that eye
conditions can arise fairly 'suddenly" and at some advanced ages.  >>

That's whole 'nother' subject that we need not go into here.  Lets get young 
dogs checked and establish a knowledge of the conditions.  In order to do 
this we much check our dogs for all eye conditions and know the status before 
we breed any of them.  

Joe